Re: Translating the standard

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:48:51 -0700, Asmus Freytag (c) via Unicode wrote:

On 3/13/2018 12:55 PM, Philippe Verdy wrote:

It is then a version of the matching standards from Canadian and French standard bodies. This does not make a big difference, except that those national standards (last editions in 2003) are not kept in sync with evolutions of the ISO/IEC standard. So it can be said that this was a version for the 2003 version of the ISO/IEC standard, supported and sponsored by some of their national members.

There is a way to transpose international standards to national standards, but they then pick up a new designation, e.g. ANSI for US or DIN for German or EN for European Norm.

A./

2018-03-13 19:38 GMT+01:00 Asmus Freytag via Unicode :

On 3/13/2018 11:20 AM, Marcel Schneider via Unicode wrote:

On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:55:28 +0000, Michel Suignard wrote:

Time to correct some facts.
The French version of ISO/IEC 10646 (2003 version) were done in a separate effort by Canada and France NBs and not within SC2 proper.
...

Then it can be referred to as “French version of ISO/IEC 10646” but I’ve got Andrew’s point, too.

Correction: if a project is not carried out by SC2 (the proper ISO/IEC subcommittee) then it is not a "version" of the ISO/IEC standard.

A./
 

Thanks for correction. And I confess and apologize that on Patrick’s French Unicode 5.0 Code Charts page (
http://hapax.qc.ca/Tableaux-5.0.htm
), there is no instance of "version", although the item is referred to as "ISO 10646:2003 (F)", from which it can ordinarily be inferred that "ISO" did back the project and that it is considered as the French version of the standard.
 
I wasn’t aware that this kind of parsing the facts is somewhat informal and shouldn’t be handled on mailing lists without a caveat. 
 
That said, the French transposition of ISO/IEC 10646 was not carried out as just sort of a joint venture of Canada and France (which btw has stepped out, leaving Québec alone supporting the cost of future editions! Really ugly), given that it got feedback from numerous countries, part of which was written in French, and went through a heavy ballot process. Thus, getting it changed is not easy since it was approved by the time, and any change requests should be documented and are primarily damageable as threatening stability. Name changes affecting rare characters prove to be feasible, while on the other hand, syncing the French name of U+202F with common practice and TUS is obviously more complicated, which in turn compromises usability in UIs, where we’re therefore likely to use descriptors i.e. altered names for roughly half of the characters bearing a specific name. Somehow the same rationale as for UTN #24 but somewhat less apposite given that the French transposition is not constrained by stability policies.
 
Best regards,
 
Marcel
 
Received on Tue Mar 13 2018 - 23:37:50 CDT